Iwill awardgiven: δdek, de = ek ef - ∠bisector of ∠e m∠def = 44°, m∠dek =

Here is their argument. given the obtuse angle x, we make a quadrilateral abcd with ∠dab = x, and ∠abc = 90◦, and ad = bc. say the perpendicular bisector to dc meets the perpendicular bisector to ab at p. then pa = pb and pc = pd. so the triangles pad and pbc have equal sides and are congruent. thus ∠pad = ∠pbc. but pab is isosceles, hence ∠pab = ∠pba. subtracting, gives x = ∠pad−∠pab = ∠pbc −∠pba = 90◦. this is a preposterous conclusion – just where is the mistake in the "proof" and why does the argument break down there?

Planning for the possibility that your home might get struck by lighting and catch on fire is part of a plan

Acylinder has volume 45π and radius 3. what is it’s height?